Identifying "ownership" through role descriptions to support implementing universal colorectal cancer tumor screening for Lynch syndrome

Delivery of hereditary cancer genetics services to patients newly diagnosed with ovarian and endometrial cancers at three gynecologic oncology clinics in the USA, Brazil, and Mexico

OBJECTIVE

Three gynecologic oncology clinics located in the USA, Brazil, and Mexico collaborated to evaluate their delivery of hereditary cancer genetics services. This descriptive retrospective review study aimed to establish baseline rates and timeliness of guideline-recommended genetics service delivery to patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, primary peritoneal (ovarian), and endometrial cancers at each clinic.

METHODS

Patients who were newly diagnosed with ovarian and endometrial cancers between September 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020 were identified from the medical records of the clinics. Genetics service delivery metrics included the rates of mismatch repair deficiency tumor testing for patients with endometrial cancer (microsatellite instability/immunohistochemistry, MSI/IHC), referral to genetics services for patients with ovarian cancer, completed genetics consultations, and germline genetic testing for patients with ovarian and endometrial cancers. Timeliness was calculated as the average number of days between diagnosis and the relevant delivery metric. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze data.

RESULTS

In total, 1195 patients (596 with ovarian cancer, 599 with endometrial cancer) were included in the analysis, and rates of genetics service delivery varied by clinic. For patients with ovarian cancer, referral rates ranged by clinic from 32.6% to 89.5%; 30.4-65.1% of patients completed genetics consultation and 32.6-68.7% completed genetic testing. The timeliness to genetic testing for patients with ovarian cancer ranged by clinic from 107 to 595 days. A smaller proportion of patients with endometrial cancer completed MSI/IHC testing (10.0-69.2%), with the average time to MSI/IHC ranging from 15 to 282 days. Rates of genetics consultation among patients with endometrial cancer ranged by clinic from 10.8% to 26.0% and 12.5-16.6% completed genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

All clinics successfully established baseline rates and timeliness of delivering hereditary cancer genetics services to patients with ovarian and endometrial cancers. Lower rates of delivering genetics services to patients with endometrial cancer warrant additional research and quality improvement efforts.

Predictive factors based on the health belief model on cancer screening behaviour in first degree relatives of patients with Lynch syndrome-associated colorectal cancer

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate colorectal cancer-related knowledge, health beliefs, and screening behaviour in first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with Lynch syndrome-associated colorectal cancer (CRC) and explore the predictive factors of screening behaviour based on a health belief model.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted in the colorectal department of a Class A tertiary hospital in Guangzhou from December 2017 to December 2019. A total of 265 FDRs of 96 patients with Lynch syndrome-related CRC were selected. The study was conducted in the colorectal department of a tertiary cancer centre in Guangzhou. The demographic questionnaire, the simplified CRC knowledge questionnaire, and the Champion's Health Belief Model Scale were used for evaluation. Data were analyzed using statistical description, between-group comparisons, and binary logistic regression.

Results

A total of 160 (60.4%), 61 (23.0%), and 44 (16.6%) of the participants had high, medium, and low levels of knowledge about CRC, respectively; the average overall score of health belief was 121.36 ± 13.02. Sixty-one participants (23.0%) underwent Lynch syndrome-associated cancer screening. The predictive factors of screening behaviour included sex (male), age (older), married status (married), multiple primary cancers of the index patients, and high levels of knowledge and health beliefs (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

The knowledge and health beliefs of cancer and cancer screening in FDRs of patients with Lynch syndrome-associated CRC should be improved. Both knowledge and beliefs are critical in promoting their cancer screening behaviour. Interventions should focus on health education and enhance health beliefs of the FDRs for better screening behaviour.

Patient navigation for hereditary colorectal cancer: Design of a randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of pathways to genetic counseling

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of Lynch and other hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndromes through germline genetic testing has important implications for treatment and risk-management, yet guideline-recommended genetic counseling referral and attendance is suboptimal.

METHODS

Our team developed an adapted patient navigation program-Pathways to Genetic Counseling-to address multilevel barriers to genetic counseling referral and receipt. This paper describes the methods of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing Pathways to Genetic Counseling's effectiveness at increasing genetic counseling attendance in the University of Washington Medicine health system. We will identify CRC patients eligible for genetic counseling (diagnosed before age 50 or at any age with evidence of inherited mismatch repair deficiency) through a combination of structured electronic health record queries and manual chart review. Patients will be randomized 1:1 prior to consent and receive either care as usual (no contact) or be invited to participate in patient navigation. We will use chart review to compare rates of genetic counseling referral and attendance within six months of randomization, regardless of patients' engagement with navigation. We plan to identify and randomize 161 eligible CRC patients over a nine-month period beginning in late 2021.

DISCUSSION

Our pragmatic RCT design will provide real-world data on the potential for patient navigation to address longstanding care gaps in preventive genomic medicine. If effective, we hope to pilot Pathways to Genetic Counseling in additional settings with a long-term goal of improving appropriate diagnosis of hereditary CRC syndromes and subsequent cascade screening of eligible family members.

Stakeholders' views of integrating universal tumour screening and genetic testing for colorectal and endometrial cancer into routine oncology

Mainstream genetic testing in routine oncology care requires implementation research to inform intervention design. In Australia, funding is available for oncology health professionals (OHP) to organise genetic testing (GT) for eligible colorectal and endometrial cancer patients as part of their routine care. To assess the health system ability to incorporate this practice change, we conducted an implementation survey using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The online survey was available from April to September 2020 to OHP and genetic health professional (GHP). In total, 198 respondents attempted the survey, with 158 completed and 27 partial responses: 26% were GHP, 66% OHP and 8% pathologists. Of all responders, 50% were female, mainly practicing in public hospital settings (57%) in an urban location (80%) and with an 18-60 years plus age range. The majority of respondents saw the relative advantage of aligning GT to abnormal universal tumour screening (UTS) results, with 77% of GHP and 78% of OHP agreeing it would streamline care for patients. There was disagreement across healthcare professional groups about knowledge and self-efficacy, with 45% of GHP not viewing oncologists as 'feeling confident' to use genetic test results for treatment management decisions, while 62% of OHP felt confident in their ability. Both OHP and GHP's indicated embedding a genetic counsellor in oncology or having a genetics point of contact to support integrating of GT through UTS as favourable interventions. Implementation research findings allow for the design of targeted interventions and a model for GT integration into oncology.

How can Australia integrate routine genetic sequencing in oncology: a qualitative study through an implementation science lens

PURPOSE

This study sought to determine genetics and oncology specialists' views of integrating BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in epithelial ovarian and breast cancer into routine practice.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were designed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Questions included experiences or views of the BRCA testing processes, implementation needs of oncology health professionals, perceived challenges, and future ideas for interventions to integrate genetic testing into oncology.

RESULTS

Twenty-two participants were interviewed from twelve health organizations and four themes were identified: (1) embracing the shift to mainstream genetic testing, with the majority of participants viewing BRCA testing as clinically useful and routine use important for maintaining a patient centered process; (2) the need for communication networks and role delineation to integrate routine genetic testing; (3) factors that influence sustaining routine genetic testing, including ongoing training, resources and funding, real-world adaptation, system complexity, and champions; and (4) variation in system interventions for integrating routine genetic testing align to organizational context.

CONCLUSION

Findings illustrate the need for integrating genetic testing into routine oncology, and that adaptation of interventions and processes is essential to sustain a feasible model. An understanding of individual and organizational implementation factors will help to prepare for future integration of routine genetic testing in other cancers.

Organizational readiness to implement population-based screening and genetic service delivery for hereditary cancer prevention and control

Despite clinical guidelines, programs conducting population-based screening and genetic service delivery for hereditary cancer prevention and control are rare in practice. We interviewed individuals (n = 13) instrumental in implementing seven unique clinical programs conducting either universal tumor screening for Lynch Syndrome or routine family history screening and provision of genetic services for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in the United States. To characterize determinants of readiness to implement population-based cancer genetic service delivery models, interviews and deductive codes drew on Weiner's theory of organizational readiness for change. Qualitative analysis identified themes across programs. The degree to which organizational stakeholders valued moving to a population-based genetic service delivery model depended on the existence of aligned clinical guidelines at the time of program implementation. However, judgments of implementation capacity within the organization, particularly with respect to task demands and resource concerns, were more often barriers to readiness. Program champions were essential to facilitating readiness, frequently taking on substantial uncompensated work. These data suggest that developing interventions targeting change efficacy and cultivating practice change champions may be two promising ways to increase uptake of population-based hereditary cancer screening and genetic service delivery in clinical practice.

Disparities in gynecologic cancer genetics evaluation

An estimated 2-5% of endometrial cancers and 15-20% of high-grade, non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancers have an underlying hereditary cause. Appropriate risk assessment, genetic counseling, and germline genetic testing for cancer predisposition genes in both gynecologic cancer patients and their at-risk relatives is essential for effective delivery of tailored cancer treatment and cancer prevention. However, significant disparities exist within medically underserved and minority populations in the United States regarding awareness of, access to, and use of genetic services. The objectives of this review are to summarize the literature on genetic counseling and genetic testing of gynecologic cancer patients, the cascade genetic testing of their families following the identification of a germline mutation associated with susceptibility to cancer, to highlight disparities between populations, and to present some potential remedies.

Disseminating universal genetic testing to a diverse, indigent patient population at a county hospital gynecologic oncology clinic

OBJECTIVE

The universal genetic testing initiative (UGTI) is a quality improvement effort to increase rates of guideline-based genetic counseling (GC) and genetic testing (GT) of patients with potentially hereditary cancers. The UGTI was disseminated to a county hospital gynecologic oncology clinic that serves a diverse, indigent patient population.

METHODS

Using the Model for Improvement quality improvement framework, interventions including integrated GC, clinic tracking, assisted GC referrals, and provider education were tested over 26 months. A retrospective data review included patients with high-grade, non-mucinous epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers (HGOC) and endometrial cancers (EC) diagnosed between 9/1/12-8/31/16. Statistical analyses were performed to describe the population and to evaluate rates of recommendation and use of immunohistochemistry tumor testing (IHC), GC, and GT.

RESULTS

A cohort of 241 patients (57 HGOC, 184 EC) were included. At the conclusion of the study 84.2% of HGOC patients were referred for GC, 89.6% (43/48) completed GC, and 90.7% (39/43) completed GT. Of EC patients, 81.0% were recommended to have IHC and 62.4% (93/149) completed IHC. Patients with HGOC diagnosed during dissemination of UGTI were significantly more likely to receive a recommendation for GC (p = 0.02) and to complete GT (p = 0.03) than those diagnosed before UGTI. Patients with EC were significantly more likely to complete IHC if diagnosed after UGTI than those diagnosed prior to dissemination (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The UGTI can be adapted to increase use of guideline-based cancer genetics services in a diverse, indigent, gynecologic cancer patient population.

Information exchange between patients with Lynch syndrome and their genetic and non-genetic health professionals: whose responsibility?

Individuals at high risk for Lynch syndrome (LS) should be offered genetic counselling, since preventive options are available. However, uptake of genetic services and follow-up care are currently suboptimal, possibly caused by inadequate exchange of information. Therefore, this qualitative study aims to gain insight in the process of information exchange between patients diagnosed with LS and their non-genetic (i.e., general practitioner, gastroenterologist, gynaecologist) and genetic (i.e., clinical geneticist or genetic counsellor) health professionals concerning referral for genetic counselling and follow-up care. Participants comprised 13 patients diagnosed with LS (8 index patients and 5 of their affected relatives) and 24 health professionals (6 general practitioners, 8 gastroenterologists, 6 gynaecologists and 4 genetic health professionals). Analysis of the interview transcripts was performed in parallel and again after the interviews, following guidelines for qualitative research and using MAXQDA software. The main finding is that patients may ‘get lost’ between health professionals who lack a clear overview of their own and each other’s role and responsibilities in the referral and follow-up care for patients with possible LS. Education of non-genetic health professionals and optimisation of communication between health professionals might help to enable more timely diagnosis of LS and allow patients to address their doubts and questions to the most appropriate healthcare professional.

Clinician-Stakeholders' Perspectives on Using Patient Portals to Return Lynch Syndrome Screening Results

Test results for genetic conditions, such as Lynch Syndrome (LS), have traditionally been returned by genetic counselors or other providers who can explain results implications and provide psychosocial support. Returning genetic results through an Electronic Health Record's patient portal may increase the efficiency of returning results and could activate patient follow-up; however, stakeholder input is necessary to determine acceptability and appropriate implementation for LS. Twenty interviews were conducted with clinicians from six specialties involved in LS screening that represent a range of settings. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis and thematic analysis across content categories. Participants felt that patient portals could supplement personal calls, but the potential sensitive nature of LS screening results indicated the need for caution. Others felt that LS results could be returned through portals if there were clear explanations of the result, reputable additional information available within the portal, urging follow up confirmatory testing, and a referral to a genetics specialist. Patient portals were seen as helpful for prompting patient follow-up and providing resources to notify at-risk family members. There is potential for patient portals to return LS screening and other genetic results, however we raise several issues to resolve before implementation is warranted.

A Systematic Review on the Existing Screening Pathways for Lynch Syndrome Identification

Background

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common hereditary colon cancer syndrome, accounting for 3–5% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases, and it is associated with the development of other cancers. Early detection of individuals with LS is relevant, since they can take advantage of life-saving intensive care surveillance. The debate regarding the best screening policy, however, is far from being concluded. This prompted us to conduct a systematic review of the existing screening pathways for LS.

Methods

We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, and SCOPUS online databases for the existing screening pathways for LS. The eligibility criteria for inclusion in this review required that the studies evaluated a structured and permanent screening pathway for the identification of LS carriers. The effectiveness of the pathways was analyzed in terms of LS detection rate.

Results

We identified five eligible studies. All the LS screening pathways started from CRC cases, of which three followed a universal screening approach. Concerning the laboratory procedures, the pathways used immunohistochemistry and/or microsatellite instability testing. If the responses of the tests indicated a risk for LS, the genetic counseling, performed by a geneticist or a genetic counselor, was mandatory to undergo DNA genetic testing. The overall LS detection rate ranged from 0 to 5.2%.

Conclusion

This systematic review reported different existing pathways for the identification of LS patients. Although current clinical guidelines suggest to test all the CRC cases to identify LS cases, the actual implementation of pathways for LS identification has not been realized. Large-scale screening programs for LS have the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality for CRC, but coordinated efforts in educating all key stakeholders and addressing public needs are still required.

Barriers and Facilitating Factors for Implementation of Genetic Services: A Public Health Perspective

More than 15 years after the publication of the sequence of the human genome, the resulting changes in health care have been modest. At the same time, some promising examples in genetic services become visible, which contribute to the prevention of chronic disease such as cancer. These are discussed to identify barriers and facilitating factors for the implementation of genetic services. Examples from oncogenetics illustrate a high risk of serious disease where prevention is possible, especially in relatives. Some 5% of breast cancers and colorectal cancers are attributable to an inherited predisposition. These cancers occur at a relatively young age. DNA testing of relatives of affected patients may facilitate primary and secondary prevention. Training of non-genetic health care workers and health technology assessment are needed, as is translational research in terms of bringing genomics to health care practice while monitoring and evaluating. Stratified screening programs could include cascade screening and risk assessment based on family history. New roles and responsibilities will emerge. A clear assessment of the values implied is needed allowing to balance the pros and cons of interventions to further the responsible innovation of genetic services.